P.Kalimuthu v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Second day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13325 of 2021 P.KALIMUTHU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUPPUR CENTRAL POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR CITY.

CR.NO.898 OF 2020.

For Petitioner : M/S.S.RAMACHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.898 of 2020 seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 approached the Office of the defacto complainant/Muthukannan, who is the Joint SubRegistrar No.II, Tiruppur, for registration along with the nontraceable certificate issued by the petitioner, which was found to be fake, which resulted in the filing of the complaint by the defacto complainant before the respondent police.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in order to register the sale deed, the Registration Authority insist for CSR and Non- Traceable Certificate, for which, A1 has approached the respondent police. At that time, the petitioner/Kalimuthu worked as Sub-Inspector of Police attached to

the respondent police station. Thereafter, A1 was found to be in possession of a Non- Traceable Certificate, which was found to be a fabricated document. However, the petitioner has not issued the said certificate, however, he was roped into this criminal case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the defacto complainant entertaining doubt, had referred the nontraceable certificate for verification to the respondent police and it was found that the non-traceable certificate was a fabricated document which was not issued by the respondent police. He further submits that the co-accused had already been already enlarged on bail. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel and this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused/A1, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. (c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 02/08/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, TIRUPPUR.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUPPUR CENTRAL POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR CITY.

+1 CC to M/S.S.RAMACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.8090 CRL OP.13325/2021 Date :02/08/2021 TA-09/08/2021